UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #23

[notsure]

Dura Lex, sed lex.

The Law is harsh
But it is the Law.

I appreciate that. All I'm saying is that it is easy for someone to make slip-ups under pressure. I'm sure I would forget my own name if cross-examined

 

[notsure]

Not a native English speaker here, but in many languages, “looking for” and “looking at” would require different words for translation. “Looking for” implies, “searching”, “looking at” - viewing, seeing, regarding. French “chercher” and “regarder” would be good examples. In fact, there is something opposite in the meanings, as “look for” implies not seeing it yet, “looking at” means, it is in front of you. (The only similarity being, in both cases you might be seeing it, but either not registering, or not realizing what you are seeing). However, one needs to hear how LL speaks. Some people tend to drop sentences mid-way, out of tiredness, distraction, or preoccupation with something else.

For sure, "chercher" and "regarder" are different words in French, whereas "look for" and "look at" only differ with regard to the prepositions required, so it's easier to slip up.

I imagine some are thinking it was a Freudian slip on LL's part. Well, that's a possibility.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I remember thinking that baby H sounded like one of the weakest cases against LL, that was until today. Now I feel like it could be one of the strongest we’ve heard so far, both H & I we heard about today had some quite damning details IMO.. so much we didn’t know about, especially for baby H.

I don’t know how LL, someone who admittedly lived for work, was borderline obsessed with her job, seemed to care too much what people thought of her, claimed to be thinking about these babies so much that she was searching the parents up for months, even on Christmas Day and anniversaries, sent texts to all her colleagues about how heartbreaking it was, now can only shed tears for herself and not for the tiny babies who lost their lives before they’d even began. Not even for the parents who didn’t get to carry their babies out of hospital in a car seat but instead carried out a memory box, and went home only to have to put away the Moses basket, the pram, the car seat. Instead she cries at a picture of her old room and the voice of a man she claims was only a friend.

I know we can’t see her or hear her tone of voice when she’s answering these questions, but the sheer amount of contradictions is ridiculous IMO. The poor parents of all these babies having to sit there and listen to all this for over 6 months now, and then there’s the ones LL has accused of either lying or being mistaken about their memory of some of the last moments they spent with their child. I understand she has to defend herself, and she has the right to. But those are some of the last memories the parents have of their child, I struggle to believe that they are inaccurate or lies. JMO

 

[Blondiexoxo]

It was reported earlier that Dr Neame had testified that LL and LL alone took our child H’s ET tube. Is this something she was qualified to do, and should have been doing alone?

Also, the evidence about baby H’s chest drain coming out and Dr Ventress putting it back in. Is it possible for a chest drain to just fall out of a baby’s chest on its own? Or would it require some manipulating?

Some of the evidence about child H today has made me feel sick. If guilty, and baby H’s chest drain was purposely pulled out, would she have been in pain? I know she survived but the thought that someone trusted to care for tiny babies could, if guilty want to inflict pain on them is too much to even imagine.

MOO

 

[Popcorn80]

It was reported earlier that Dr Neame had testified that LL and LL alone took our child H’s ET tube. Is this something she was qualified to do, and should have been doing alone?

Also, the evidence about baby H’s chest drain coming out and Dr Ventress putting it back in. Is it possible for a chest drain to just fall out of a baby’s chest on its own? Or would it require some manipulating?

Some of the evidence about child H today has made me feel sick. If guilty, and baby H’s chest drain was purposely pulled out, would she have been in pain? I know she survived but the thought that someone trusted to care for tiny babies could, if guilty want to inflict pain on them is too much to even imagine.

MOO

Chest drains are normally stitched in place, then covered with a clear dressing.
This however is only secure if the person siting it is competent on drains.
Always run opioid infusion as chest drains are known to be painful.
This was heartbreaking to read today.

 

[marynnu]

It was reported earlier that Dr Neame had testified that LL and LL alone took our child H’s ET tube. Is this something she was qualified to do, and should have been doing alone?

Also, the evidence about baby H’s chest drain coming out and Dr Ventress putting it back in. Is it possible for a chest drain to just fall out of a baby’s chest on its own? Or would it require some manipulating?

Some of the evidence about child H today has made me feel sick. If guilty, and baby H’s chest drain was purposely pulled out, would she have been in pain? I know she survived but the thought that someone trusted to care for tiny babies could, if guilty want to inflict pain on them is too much to even imagine.

MOO

I don't think it was LL who removed the ET tube. I can't locate my source but I read today that it was a more senior nurse. EDIT I think it might have been Shelley Tompkins.
You're right IMO that this would not be a decision that someone at LL's level would take.

 

[Dcflag]

Chest drains are normally stitched in place, then covered with a clear dressing.
This however is only secure if the person siting it is competent on drains.
Always run opioid infusion as chest drains are known to be painful.
This was heartbreaking to read today.

I thought I read today/yesterday it was taped? Or they mentioned today about stitching being more secure than taping and I assumed it meant it was taped.

 

[squish]

Just trying to catch up - I can't believe how hard Letby is <modsnip - circumventing the profanity filter> herself on the stand. Worst decision ever! She is completely annihilating every aspect of her own defense.

She comes across as full of herself and uppity. All these smart arsed comments about "I can't comment on that" "I don't believe it was ever accepted" blah blah.

And all her outlandish new stories, lies, contradicting her own defense, changing her story with every new question etc etc.

That verbal slip up made her look terrible. It's not the slip up in itself, more her reaction to it that makes her look so bad.

"I knew what I was looking for - at"
"I didn't mean it like that - I'm finding it hard to concentrate"
"What did you mean by it?"
*Silence and complete refusal to answer*
*Comes back after break in tears*

She can't even think of good answers - why not just say, "as a nurse, I'm always looking out for any potential issues"?

I'm intending to go to the trial next week, so you all might get an insider account of her manner etc.

 

[Lincoln34]

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
1m

Lucy Letby has become tearful. She says "I’m finding it quite hard to concentrate on all of these dates at the minute". The judge, Mr Justice Goss says "Having observed the witness in the witness box it’s been a long day for her". He stops the proceedings for today.

He’s trying to avoid grounds for an appeal in the event of a G verdict IMO

 

[Popcorn80]

I thought I read today/yesterday it was taped? Or they mentioned today about stitching being more secure than taping and I assumed it meant it was taped.

It could be that they taped the drains at the countess, this would definitely make it less secure.

 

[katydid23]

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
1m

Nick Johnson KC, on baby I's second collapse: "A short time beforehand, she had a full bottle, she was breathing for herself in air, and was demanding feeds. They were all good signs". Lucy Letby agrees.

It must be so devastating for the family that their baby was doing so well and suddenly collapsed...

 

[squish]

Sure, but as a medical professional even just out and about in the world, you see things in the people you encounter which non medical people do not.

So you could be in a shop being served by someone , and you notice their clubbed fingernails, which you recognise is often a sign of heart disease . Or you notice their eyeballs have a yellow tinge which indicates liver failure. It’s not that you are going out actively looking for these things , but your trained eye notices them.

And I imagine when you are on duty , that trained eye becomes even more acute when it alights upon patients . You may “glance” over at a baby while chatting, but your trained eye immediately picks up on any signs of medical distress (pale skin in this instance ).

I took LL to mean that her trained eye was more developed that the more junior colleague .

But This goes back to what I said in a previous post about LL being clumsy with her speech. The incompleteness of her response to NJ has created this avoidable “gotcha” moment , when if she had been more thorough and precise in her answer - “I am trained to spot these signs and as a more experienced nurse than my colleague, I may notice signs which she doesn’t “- , this wouldn’t have become such an issue.

There would have been several perfectly reasonable explanations for her "I knew what I was looking for", that fact she couldn't think of any speaks volumes.

I often think that for many aspects of her defense, that there could be a perfectly innocent explanation for various things - and she just can't think of anything at all, it's all "I don't recall" or denials, even for what ought to be fairly innocuous things.

 

[katydid23]

It could be that they taped the drains at the countess, this would definitely make it less secure.

IF guilty, she saw they were taped and not stitched so saw an opportunity for mayhem.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Does anyone know at what point the final confirmation of her taking the stand could have been? I’m just wondering if mr Myers had known she was going to take the stand since the start Or if she could have said no during the trial?

 

[Lincoln34]

Does anyone know at what point the final confirmation of her taking the stand could have been? I’m just wondering if mr Myers had known she was going to take the stand since the start Or if she could have said no during the trial?

She could have said no at any point - as she could now. Myers is her counsel - not her minder. I’m sure he would have advised her not to take the stand - I would have said that to her forcefully - but at the end of the day you have to be directed by your client . She has mental capacity and she chose to give evidence. IMO a disastrous decision.

I can only imagine how Myers is feeling seeing her shoot herself in the foot repeatedly

He’s probably thinking - keep a straight face- OMG I TOLD HER NOT TO DO THIS! how can I rescue this now?!

 

[Kasmeer]

There would have been several perfectly reasonable explanations for her "I knew what I was looking for", that fact she couldn't think of any speaks volumes.

I often think that for many aspects of her defense, that there could be a perfectly innocent explanation for various things - and she just can't think of anything at all, it's all "I don't recall" or denials, even for what ought to be fairly innocuous things.

Yep, this exactly is what's really tipping the balance for me right now - if I can think of better innocent explanations for things than she can, in multiple different situations, there's a problem!

I'm very forgiving of people messing up their wording on the stand; as someone who can get my wording very wrong normally, and who gets in a right mess when any pressure is involved (to the extent of saying yes when I meant no in an eye test at the opticians for goodness sake; hardly something that involves detailed memories of events from years ago), I sometimes feel it a bit harsh to jump on her for wording, especially when the "knew what I was looking for" is perfectly logical in an innocent context as well as the suspicious version.

But, why did she react the way she did to that slip? Even when being pulled up on it a simple and plausible response is "oh, I know what you're thinking now but no, I meant I'm trained to look out for anything which might suggest a problem, even when a patient seems well" or similar... and she didn't even have that, but didn't want to reply at all. Together with all the contradictions of her own previous versions, I can only be led towards what I didn't want to believe - she'd have been better off not speaking IMO.

 

[Parker Knoll]

What a day indeed, the insanity continues.
BM must rue the day his Clerk sidled up to him to tell him about the “ really interesting case “ in his pigeon hole.
However after todays write up we have plenty to discuss that does NOT involve the whereabouts of a shredder.
See you next Tuesday as they say !
MOO

 

[katydid23]

That's why this case has always been about so much more than than the nursing spreadsheet.

There's the experts not knowing who the medical staff were, designated nurses going on their breaks or just leaving the room, the timing of many events being in the early morning hours when less staff on and no visitors, babies recovering on the next shift, collapses following the pattern of LL's changes from nightshift to dayshift, with sometimes weeks of recovery in between, stopping during her holidays and when she was taken off the unit. It's a tapestry of all of these circumstances together.

MOO

EXACTLY. And that^^^ is what is missed when her defenders want to focus on the tiny details of any specific case, as if that one detail changes any of the big glaring patterns. Like 'maybe E's mum really came with milk at 10 pm and was mistaken'===that does not answer the bigger questions which are obvious when looking at the big picture.

 

[Cluedoneit]

When on the stand discussing medical symptoms/ diagnoses of these babies, Lucy Letby is the one with the nursing degree and post graduate qualifications. She is an experienced,highly qualified nurse, who many, before her cross examination revealed otherwise (IMO) , believed to be competent and professional. She isn’t the layperson, when it comes to medical terminology, Nick Johnson KC is. She was expected as part of her job to take quite complex medical terminology and break it down in a precise and accurate way so that distressed and sleep deprived parents can understand exactly what is wrong with their baby, as the doctor may Not be around to discuss it.
I understand that anyone in any profession can slip up under pressure, but we need to remember that the things discussed were part of Letby’s job and she’s not just an average member of the public.

 

[katydid23]

I think there is a difference between having certain rehearsed statements in your head which you reel off when prompted “such as walk into a situation” and having the intellectual fluidity to enable you to respond to questions which you might not have thought were going to be asked or are not asked in the way you had expected.

She does not strike me in the slightest as being articulate. I think that saying she “ knew what she was looking for” makes perfect sense in that it means that as a more experienced practitioner, she knows what to look for in terms of early signs of something being wrong with a baby, such as paleness. But she was clumsy in my opinion because her answers are often somewhat incomplete and imprecise, which creates these opportunities for different meanings to be attached to what she is saying. So in the example, we are talking about, if she had answered more completely along the lines of “ I knew what I was looking for in terms of early signs of babies in medical distress” then it would not be suspicious and it would not have created a memorable moment in the trial, which is now being viewed as a “gotcha” moment or a Freudian slip.

But it’s only once the words are out of her mouth and the follow-up question comes from NJ that she realises that the words can be misconstrued.

So if she was there actively looking for signs of medical distress, and saw some, wouldn't she rush to the cot and begin emergency aid? I mean, instead of standing there and asking ' if baby looked a little pale?'

It seemed like she was wanting the other, less senior nurse, to make the call and take over.

Also, are you ignoring the other main issue, which is how she could see when she came from the brightly lit hallway into the much darker room and with the cot partially covered by a flap ?

But you also said "in a way I've not seen before in a trial" which implies that you think there's something unusual going on there when there clearly, imo, isn't.

I've watched a lot of trials over the years. I rarely, if ever, have seen the defendant asking for a break from being questioned before lunch. Or for their testimony being cut down to 2 days a week, and from there, to half a day at a time.

It is very unusual. IMO